Feedback on the QA cycle

Elfy ub.untu at
Fri Mar 21 11:37:13 UTC 2014

On 20/03/14 23:38, Pasi Lallinaho wrote:
> Hello,
> this is a reply to the QA recap/feedback thread. As the original 
> thread went off track, I decided to start a new one to discuss the 
> original question at hand.
> First of all, I think it was a good move to run the package testing in 
> groups and in cadence before we hit the beta milestones. Running all 
> those tests and gathering a (big) list of bugs was and is important, 
> especially now that we have entered the "bug fixes only" stage of the 
> release preparing. I am sure we would be able to fix a lot less bugs 
> that are annoying and affect numerous of people.
> That being said, I think the amount of calls was just about perfect 
> for an LTS cycle. I personally think we should go through all the 
> groups during regular releases as well, but possibly group more groups 
> into one call, and relax on the amount of testing "required". Optional 
> tests could be literally that; run if comfortable, but if they are 
> left untested, that's fine as well.
That makes some sense. It's easy enough to call for more than one group 
at a time, though I will be looking at the current groups we have, if 
nothing else then the new trusty group will be amalgamated.

Thoughts on Optional testing is close to my current thoughts ;)
> As to what (else) to test, I think we should try to focus on new 
> features, as we did this cycle. This can and probably should be 
> extended to running tests on applications that have had a major update 
> during the cycle. All of this in a flexible manner; the more new 
> things we have about to test, the looser running the other tests 
> should be. Except on the LTS releases...
This is ok in itself, as long as new features aren't landing at the end.

Which is just me banging the same drum as last cycle :)
> I've yet to decide if some of the testcases are a bit too thorough or 
> if they are just about right. I guess we can agree and assume that the 
> amount of bugs is somewhat correlating with how deep the tests are. As 
> I see it though, the deeper and specific the tests are, the more 
> mechanic running them is. Which leads us to exploratory testing...
I've been rethinking this, there is no reason why a testcase couldn't 
have a less thorough test incorporated, or even seperate tests.

It is at the end of the day about getting eyes on these - at current 
count we have ~30-40 people actually reporting.

> I have a few doubtful thoughts on exploratory testing. How do we 
> motivate people to run exploratory testing with the development 
> version, while it is not ready for production, or day-to-day 
> environments? If the tests aren't run on/as your main system, how can 
> the testing be natural enough to be of exploratory nature? How do we 
> specify a good balance between feature and exploratory testing?
This would be a completely new thing for us, but then 2 cycles ago the 
packages tracker was as well.

I need to talk to Nick Skaggs about how well this went for Ubuntu.
> It is hard to evaluate how the milestone ISO testing succeeded because 
> we still have one beta to go, which is also the most important 
> milestone. That is something where we can improve though.
> The alpha releases could have been focused more on specific issues. 
> Now we kind of just ran through them without clear focus. Of course 
> this means that developers need to have their stuff together earlier 
> in the cycle, but that is a desirable direction generally.
This too makes sense to me, it does lead to rethinking the way calls are 
put out - could be, for example, a call to test AlphaX and also to test 
Parole with it's testcase.

> I would rethink the amount of alpha releases we want to participate in 
> especially with non-LTS releases. We can opt-in for as many as we did 
> now if we have set a clear point of focus for those. This looks 
> unrealistic for T+1 though, as this cycle has been really busy for 
> everybody and we have got a lot of stuff that was prepared in the last 
> 2 years included.
I agree here - this has to be led by those landing features.
> For the beta releases, we should get more publicity. We still have the 
> beta 2 release to come, so let's try to fix at least some of that for 
> Trusty.
> To end the feedback on a positive note (though there weren't so many 
> negative points in total anyway), I think we have been up to the 
> highest possible standard with QA considering the size of our team and 
> the amount of new things landing this cycle.
> Finally, a big THANK YOU Elfy for running the QA team, doing all the 
> calls, reporting back to us, taking care of bugs being noticed, 
> features landing in time et cetera... Last but not least, thanks for 
> putting up with us all who have sometimes more or less neglected our 
> duties in QA and being unresponsive to questions and calls. It is very 
> much appreciated, and I totally think that 14.04 would be a lesser 
> release without your work and persistence!
> Cheers,
> Pasi


Ubuntu Forum Council Member
Xubuntu QA Lead

More information about the xubuntu-devel mailing list